A Treatise on Abortion

Some people of late have been talking about “the abortion debate” and the law.  Let’s have a look at one legal argument that I haven’t heard anyone make before.

Since it is easily proven that an unborn child has human DNA from conception, there is no doubt that the child is legally a human being. Likewise, since the child has DNA that is distinct from both parents, there can be no doubt that the child is legally not an integral part of the body of either parent; and since the child has her own beating heart and active brain waves and can move her limbs under her own control there can be no doubt that she is alive.  So until birth, a child lives in a legal state not unlike that of a pre-emancipation negro slave living on a plantation with the Mother acting the role of the Master with the power over life and death of the subject property.

It would seem to make sense under the law that a child in the womb is not the exclusive property of the mother, but is joint-property entrusted to the mother until birth.  Since the child is not legally a ‘person’ until birth, it seems logical that the child would fall under the legal definition of ‘live stock’ property as slaves did, with the owners being the two parents who contributed DNA to form the child. Normally a marriage contract would be written evidence of this trust, however even in the absence of a marriage contract, an implied contract still exists under the law and takes the form of an implied Trust agreement where the mother is the trustee and at the same time one of the beneficiaries of that Trust.

However, this is not the 19th century, we have laws today to protect human dignity, human rights, and we also have laws to insure that even live stock are treated humanely and not tortured or allowed to suffer unnecessarily.  We also have laws that protect other interested parties in a Trust from abuse or neglect or loss of the property by an act of a trustee, in this case the father would be the other interested party.  His property rights also exist and should be protected and if they are not protected, he should prevail in a civil case to recover damages and the loss of his half of the property entrusted to the trustee/mother.  On top of that, cruel and inhumane treatment of ‘live stock’ can be a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine.

But yet again we see the Democrats on the wrong side of a human rights issue. They were on the wrong side of the slavery issue, they were on the wrong side of the black voting rights issue, they were on the wrong side of the segregation issue, and now they are on the wrong side of the abortion issue. The undeniable fact is that the unborn are living beings with human DNA and as such they already have human rights and because they are lives that are entrusted to the care of people living under the law, they already have the right to be treated humanely and with respect and dignity and not be tortured and their rights deserve to be vigorously defended by the State, the United States and the Supreme Court of the United States every bit as much as the rights of any other human being and every bit as much as any domestic live stock animal or Zoo animal is protected from harm and cruelty.

So, here is where the abortion debate ends.  If a Zoo keeper had a chimpanzee that she didn’t want and hired a man to end that chimpanzee’s life by a method of lassoing the chimp’s arms and legs through the bars of the cage and viciously pulling them off one by one and then finally smashing the chimp’s skull with a hammer so it would fit through the bars and then pulled the dead body out through the bars for disposal in a garbage bag, who would say this man and the Zoo keeper who hired him were innocent of any crime?  Who would say these people were just providing a necessary service to the community?  What I have just described is what abortion is in all of its bloody truth and all of it’s agonizing horror and all of its vicious inhumanity.

Now look at the people in the Democrat Party who defend and protect and legitimize and justify this kind of horrific act done against our own species, our own kind, our own fellow Americans.  Is there any word that comes to mind for them other than Nazi?  Is there any crime against humanity that compares with it’s 50 Million American dead?  Yes, you read that number right. Is there any doubt that this is genocide? Is there any doubt that the guilty must be stopped and brought to justice in a Nuremberg style trial and the organizations that funded it, promoted it, defended it, and carried it out should be shut down, seized of all of their property and records and dissolved permanently, including the Democratic Party and all the people who are responsible for running it?  Is there any doubt that the places where these horrific crimes took place should be made into national memorials for the dead and educational museums for the living so that our children can be taught that this kind of horror should never ever happen again?

If there is doubt, then what right did we have to stop the Nazi’s from executing innocent Jews, Poles, and Gypsies? After all it was legal for them to do so under German law at the time.  Indeed, have we as a nation not willfully blinded ourselves just as the German people turned a blind eye to the Nazi genocide as it happened right in their midst?  Worse yet, have we as a nation not already followed in the foot steps of the Nazi killing machine?  In fact are we not even better and more efficient than the Nazis were at lying about it, justifying it, and building it into an industrial killing machine?

So the next time someone wants you to debate them on the abortion issue, just tell them the debate is over, abortion is genocide.  If they deny it, you have every right to call them a Nazi.  End of debate.